After considerable back-and-forth in SC, and after substantial and valuable feedback from the DPC community, we have modified the artwork rule in the interests of bringing greater clarity to what had been a muddied pool...

It was always the intention of the artwork rule to allow as much latitude as possible for including "existing artwork" in submitted images, while at the same time regulating the use of artwork as a means to get around editing restrictions or time-of-capture restrictions. It seems to us, in particular, that the use of printed-out artwork, integrated into the scene, to provide the primary impact of an image, has been highly problematical for a long time. We have tried to produce a revision to the rule that makes this much clearer without, at the same time, changing our enforcement parameters.

Here's the previous artwork rule: You May: include images that are clearly recognizable as existing artwork when photographing your entry. Images that could be mistaken for real objects in the scene may also be included, but must not be so prominent that voters are basically judging a photo of a photo.

There was a huge amount of subjectivity here, especially in that phrase "could be mistaken for real objects in the scene".

We have replaced the above with this new version of the artwork rule:

You may: include existing artwork in your entry, but photo-realistic artwork such as printed photos, monitor images or realistic illustrations must either be clearly presented as artwork or used only as a minor supporting element. Using photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects or backgrounds that provide the primary impact of an entry will be grounds for disqualification.

Hopefully this will clear up a lot of the confusion. The new artwork rule applies in all rulesets currently used in DPC challenges.

I think, the wording of this rule would need to be different for advanced and expert editing rules. Expert editing allows combination of multiple photos of different scenes (in contrats to advanced, where only bracketing or focus stacking of the same scene allowed). In my mind, under expert editing rules, it just does not make sense to prohibit printing a photo (for whatever reason) taken during a given challenge period and including it as prominent part of the final composition, but on the other hand to allow doing essentially the same thing via blending images in PS...

I think, the wording of this rule would need to be different for advanced and expert editing rules. Expert editing allows combination of multiple photos of different scenes (in contrats to advanced, where only bracketing or focus stacking of the same scene allowed). In my mind, under expert editing rules, it just does not make sense to prohibit printing a photo (for whatever reason) taken during a given challenge period and including it as prominent part of the final composition, but on the other hand to allow doing essentially the same thing via blending images in PS...

Show us the EXIF on it and you're off the hook. It's not an issue. Bear in mind that what we are guarding against in Expert is the use of out-of-date images (or images shot by others) in the composition. It may be possible to fine-tune the wording in Expert, but remember, the PREVIOUS rule and THIS rule are basically the same, we have just clarified the wording, and Expert has survived fine under the old rule.

I think, the wording of this rule would need to be different for advanced and expert editing rules. Expert editing allows combination of multiple photos of different scenes (in contrats to advanced, where only bracketing or focus stacking of the same scene allowed). In my mind, under expert editing rules, it just does not make sense to prohibit printing a photo (for whatever reason) taken during a given challenge period and including it as prominent part of the final composition, but on the other hand to allow doing essentially the same thing via blending images in PS...

Show us the EXIF on it and you're off the hook. It's not an issue. Bear in mind that what we are guarding against in Expert is the use of out-of-date images (or images shot by others) in the composition. It may be possible to fine-tune the wording in Expert, but remember, the PREVIOUS rule and THIS rule are basically the same, we have just clarified the wording, and Expert has survived fine under the old rule.

Sure, Bear: I will bear that in mind:-)

My worry was about the "Using photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects or backgrounds that provide the primary impact of an entry will be grounds for disqualification." part in the new wording, which I felt could have been interpreted some ways as more restrictive for the Expert rules (while clearing up issues in 'advanced'). Sure it is not going to be an issue for members who have applied these rules before, but it might be confusing to new members... I guess, the best is to go ahead with this and see if there are too many asking for clarification.

My worry was about the "Using photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects or backgrounds that provide the primary impact of an entry will be grounds for disqualification." part in the new wording, which I felt could have been interpreted some ways as more restrictive for the Expert rules

That shouldn't be an issue considering you can Photoshop with wild abandon in Expert, so there's little reason to use existing artwork at all aside from text... and we'll address that issue, too.

My worry was about the "Using photo-realistic artwork to simulate physical objects or backgrounds that provide the primary impact of an entry will be grounds for disqualification." part in the new wording, which I felt could have been interpreted some ways as more restrictive for the Expert rules

That shouldn't be an issue considering you can Photoshop with wild abandon in Expert, so there's little reason to use existing artwork at all aside from text... and we'll address that issue, too.

Let me bring an actual example for what my concern is about regarding clarity. Here is Gyaban's DQ-d Toothpicks entry, for what Mike and Scalvert (in another thread) brought up the artwork rule as an additional reason for the DQ besides the candle lights. Hypothetically, if that challenge had been under the Expert rules AND Gyaban chose not to print his separate image of reflection (shot during the challenge period) and mount it to the mirror frame but simply blacken his mirror glass with a monochrome paper and blend in the previously taken mirror image in PS, then he would not have broken the rules? To me the difference between the two approaches is only technical ("mechanical"). I guess, my real problem might be with the definition of 'artwork': in Gyaban's case the 'artwork' was a photograph by his own ...

In Expert Editing, Gyaban would have made a Photoshop composite from separate images as usual. Those would each be live captures rather than existing artwork ("photos of photos").

So photos IN photos are fine while photos OF photos are not.

Got it, thanks!

Pretty much, yeah. And here's an anomaly to ponder; under the previous artwork rule, in advanced editing there was enough ambiguity to at least lead people to believe they could print out any image they wanted, whether they had shot it or not, and incorporate it into their setup with impunity. At the same time, in expert editing, they could not have PASTED that image in, in photoshop, because they didn't capture it themselves within the challenge time-frame. This was one of the glaring inconsistencies we wanted to plug.

The artwork rule was NEVER meant to encourage appropriation of images from any source and permit "illegal" post-processing on them before their incorporation into the fabric of the larger image. That's my take on it anyway...

Thanks Robert and Shannon and the rest of SC for working to clarify this rule. While it remains to be seen how it will be interpreted in future challenges, limiting the rule to "photo-realistic" artwork and specifically calling out that it can't be used to create the appearance of "physical objects" or "backgrounds" were both great changes that go a long way towards clarifying what is, and isn't legal.

Whoa scalvert, if you're saying Lydia's photo doesn't violate this rule, I don't think I should have been just DQ-ed from the Zippers Challenge. My entry uses the exact same technique. See attached (sorry Lydia

OK I get it. You are really squelching people's creativity here, but whatever ;)

With respect, I don't think they are. There need to be limits on how we present preexisting artwork or I cold simply photograph a photograph and submit it. Since the EXIF would pass validation there would be no way to tell that I used a photo that was outside the dates, and quite possible wasn't even take by me!
No artwork rule is going to be perfect, IMO. The one we have may not be the best possible one, but it has functioned fairly well over the years, and actually allows for a *lot* of creativity. IMO of course.